In mathematical logic, a universal quantification is a type of quantifier, a logical constant which is interpreted as "given any" or "for all". It expresses that a predicate can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse. In other words, it is the predication of a property or relation to every member of the domain. It asserts that a predicate within the scope of a universal quantifier is true of every value of a predicate variable.
It is usually denoted by the turned A (∀) logical operator symbol, which, when used together with a predicate variable, is called a universal quantifier ("", "", or sometimes by "" alone). Universal quantification is distinct from ''existential'' quantification ("there exists"), which only asserts that the property or relation holds for at least one member of the domain.
Quantification in general is covered in the article on quantification (logic). The universal quantifier is encoded as in Unicode, and as

** Basics **

Suppose it is given that

** Notation **

In symbolic logic, the universal quantifier symbol $\backslash forall$ (a turned "A" in a sans-serif font, Unicode U+2200) is used to indicate universal quantification. It was first used in this way by Gerhard Gentzen in 1935, by analogy with Giuseppe Peano's $\backslash exists$ (turned E) notation for existential quantification and the later use of Peano's notation by Bertrand Russell.
For example, if ''P''(''n'') is the predicate "2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''" and N is the set of natural numbers, then
: $\backslash forall\; n\backslash !\backslash in\backslash !\backslash mathbb\backslash ;\; P(n)$
is the (false) statement
:"for all natural numbers ''n'', one has 2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''".
Similarly, if ''Q''(''n'') is the predicate "''n'' is composite", then
: $\backslash forall\; n\backslash !\backslash in\backslash !\backslash mathbb\backslash ;\; \backslash bigl(\; Q(n)\; \backslash rightarrow\; P(n)\; \backslash bigr)$
is the (true) statement
:"for all natural numbers ''n'', if ''n'' is composite, then ".
Several variations in the notation for quantification (which apply to all forms) can be found in the ''Quantifier'' article.

** Properties **

** Negation **

Note that a quantified propositional function is a statement; thus, like statements, quantified functions can be negated. The notation most mathematicians and logicians utilize to denote negation is: $\backslash lnot\backslash $. However, some use the tilde (~).
For example, if P(''x'') is the propositional function "x is married", then, for a universe of discourse X of all living human beings, the universal quantification

** Other connectives **

The universal (and existential) quantifier moves unchanged across the logical connectives ∧, ∨, →, and ↚, as long as the other operand is not affected; that is:
:$\backslash begin\; P(x)\; \backslash land\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash land\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash lor\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash lor\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash to\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash to\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash nleftarrow\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash nleftarrow\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash land\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash land\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash lor\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash lor\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash to\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash to\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash nleftarrow\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash nleftarrow\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash end$
Conversely, for the logical connectives ↑, ↓, ↛, and ←, the quantifiers flip:
:$\backslash begin\; P(x)\; \backslash uparrow\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash uparrow\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash downarrow\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash downarrow\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash nrightarrow\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash nrightarrow\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash gets\; (\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash gets\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash uparrow\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash uparrow\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash downarrow\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash downarrow\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash nrightarrow\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash nrightarrow\; Q(y))\; \backslash \backslash \; P(x)\; \backslash gets\; (\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; Q(y))\; \&\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; (P(x)\; \backslash gets\; Q(y)),\&\; \backslash text\; \backslash mathbf\backslash neq\; \backslash emptyset\; \backslash \backslash \; \backslash end$

** Rules of inference **

A rule of inference is a rule justifying a logical step from hypothesis to conclusion. There are several rules of inference which utilize the universal quantifier.
''Universal instantiation'' concludes that, if the propositional function is known to be universally true, then it must be true for any arbitrary element of the universe of discourse. Symbolically, this is represented as
:$\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)\; \backslash to\; P(c)$
where ''c'' is a completely arbitrary element of the universe of discourse.
''Universal generalization'' concludes the propositional function must be universally true if it is true for any arbitrary element of the universe of discourse. Symbolically, for an arbitrary ''c'',
:$P(c)\; \backslash to\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x).$
The element ''c'' must be completely arbitrary; else, the logic does not follow: if ''c'' is not arbitrary, and is instead a specific element of the universe of discourse, then P(''c'') only implies an existential quantification of the propositional function.

** The empty set **

By convention, the formula $\backslash forall\backslash emptyset\; \backslash ,\; P(x)$ is always true, regardless of the formula ''P''(''x''); see vacuous truth.

** Universal closure **

The universal closure of a formula φ is the formula with no free variables obtained by adding a universal quantifier for every free variable in φ. For example, the universal closure of
:$P(y)\; \backslash land\; \backslash exists\; x\; Q(x,z)$
is
:$\backslash forall\; y\; \backslash forall\; z\; (\; P(y)\; \backslash land\; \backslash exists\; x\; Q(x,z))$.

** As adjoint **

In category theory and the theory of elementary topoi, the universal quantifier can be understood as the right adjoint of a functor between power sets, the inverse image functor of a function between sets; likewise, the existential quantifier is the left adjoint.Saunders Mac Lane, Ieke Moerdijk, (1992) ''Sheaves in Geometry and Logic'' Springer-Verlag. ''See page 58''
For a set $X$, let $\backslash mathcalX$ denote its powerset. For any function $f:X\backslash to\; Y$ between sets $X$ and $Y$, there is an inverse image functor $f^*:\backslash mathcalY\backslash to\; \backslash mathcalX$ between powersets, that takes subsets of the codomain of ''f'' back to subsets of its domain. The left adjoint of this functor is the existential quantifier $\backslash exists\_f$ and the right adjoint is the universal quantifier $\backslash forall\_f$.
That is, $\backslash exists\_f\backslash colon\; \backslash mathcalX\backslash to\; \backslash mathcalY$ is a functor that, for each subset $S\; \backslash subset\; X$, gives the subset $\backslash exists\_f\; S\; \backslash subset\; Y$ given by
:$\backslash exists\_f\; S\; =\backslash ,$
those $y$ in the image of $S$ under $f$. Similarly, the universal quantifier $\backslash forall\_f\backslash colon\; \backslash mathcalX\backslash to\; \backslash mathcalY$ is a functor that, for each subset $S\; \backslash subset\; X$, gives the subset $\backslash forall\_f\; S\; \backslash subset\; Y$ given by
:$\backslash forall\_f\; S\; =\backslash ,$
those $y$ whose preimage under $f$ is contained in $S$.
The more familiar form of the quantifiers as used in first-order logic is obtained by taking the function ''f'' to be the unique function $!:X\; \backslash to\; 1$ so that $\backslash mathcal(1)\; =\; \backslash $ is the two-element set holding the values true and false, a subset ''S'' is that subset for which the predicate $S(x)$ holds, and
:$\backslash begin\backslash mathcal(!)\backslash colon\; \backslash mathcal(1)\; \&\; \backslash to\; \backslash mathcal(X)\backslash \backslash \; T\; \&\backslash mapsto\; X\; \backslash \backslash \; F\; \&\backslash mapsto\; \backslash \backslash end$
:$\backslash exists\_!\; S\; =\; \backslash exists\; x.\; S(x),$
which is true if $S$ is not empty, and
:$\backslash forall\_!\; S\; =\; \backslash forall\; x.\; S(x),$
which is false if S is not X.
The universal and existential quantifiers given above generalize to the presheaf category.

** See also **

* Existential quantification
* First-order logic
* List of logic symbols—for the Unicode symbol ∀

** Notes **

** References **

*
* (ch. 2)

** External links **

*
{{Common logical symbols
Category:Logic symbols
Category:Logical expressions
Category:Quantification (science)

`\forall`

in LaTeX and related formula editors,
2·0 = 0 + 0, and 2·1 = 1 + 1, and , etc.This would seem to be a logical conjunction because of the repeated use of "and". However, the "etc." cannot be interpreted as a conjunction in formal logic. Instead, the statement must be rephrased:

For all natural numbers ''n'', one has 2·''n'' = ''n'' + ''n''.This is a single statement using universal quantification. This statement can be said to be more precise than the original one. While the "etc." informally includes natural numbers, and nothing more, this was not rigorously given. In the universal quantification, on the other hand, the natural numbers are mentioned explicitly. This particular example is true, because any natural number could be substituted for ''n'' and the statement "2·''n'' = ''n'' + ''n''" would be true. In contrast,

For all natural numbers ''n'', one has 2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''is false, because if ''n'' is substituted with, for instance, 1, the statement "2·1 > 2 + 1" is false. It is immaterial that "2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''" is true for ''most'' natural numbers ''n'': even the existence of a single counterexample is enough to prove the universal quantification false. On the other hand, for all composite numbers ''n'', one has 2·''n'' > 2 + ''n'' is true, because none of the counterexamples are composite numbers. This indicates the importance of the ''domain of discourse'', which specifies which values ''n'' can take.Further information on using domains of discourse with quantified statements can be found in the Quantification (logic) article. In particular, note that if the domain of discourse is restricted to consist only of those objects that satisfy a certain predicate, then for universal quantification this requires a logical conditional. For example,

For all composite numbers ''n'', one has 2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''is logically equivalent to

For all natural numbers ''n'', if ''n'' is composite, then 2·''n'' > 2 + ''n''.Here the "if ... then" construction indicates the logical conditional.

Given any living person ''x'', that person is marriedis given: :$\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)$ It can be seen that this is irrevocably false. Truthfully, it is stated that

It is not the case that, given any living person ''x'', that person is marriedor, symbolically: :$\backslash lnot\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)$. If the statement is not true for ''every'' element of the Universe of Discourse, then, presuming the universe of discourse is non-empty, there must be at least one element for which the statement is false. That is, the negation of $\backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)$ is logically equivalent to "There exists a living person ''x'' who is not married", or: :$\backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; \backslash lnot\; P(x)$ Generally, then, the negation of a propositional function's universal quantification is an existential quantification of that propositional function's negation; symbolically, :$\backslash lnot\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; \backslash lnot\; P(x)$ It is erroneous to state "all persons are not married" (i.e. "there exists no person who is married") when it is meant that "not all persons are married" (i.e. "there exists a person who is not married"): :$\backslash lnot\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; \backslash lnot\; P(x)\; \backslash not\backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash lnot\backslash \; \backslash forall\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; P(x)\; \backslash equiv\backslash \; \backslash exists\backslash mathbf\backslash ,\; \backslash lnot\; P(x)$